Skip to main content

tv   Book TV After Words  CSPAN  August 23, 2009 12:00pm-1:00pm EDT

12:00 pm
and all of the things that are necessary for publishing a book. >> host: at the website speed by public affairs and there you can see it. thank you very much. . .
12:01 pm
>> host: i am monica crowley the most of the nationally syndicated radio program the monica crowley show. i'm also a panelist on the mcglock lynn group and an analyst for the fox newchannel. i'm delighted to welcome to the program today brian jennings who is one of the top talk radios. he served as the national vice president of talk programming for citadel broadcasting. he's an authority on talk radio. everybody in the industry knows him and respects him widely. and according to talkers magazine, he is one of the founding fathers of conservative talk radio. brian, welcome. >> guest: well, thank you so much. >> host: we're here today to talk about your outstanding new book. it is called "censorship: the treat to silence talk radio." the new fairness doctrine exposed and here it is. let me begin with a personal bit
12:02 pm
of background on myself. i'm a nationally syndicated radio host. >> guest: yes, you are. and a good one. >> host: thank you very much. i'll take the compliment. i am increasingly alarmed as i know a lot of people in the industry, people who listen to talk radio by what you write about and that is the threat to the first amendment right to free speech. >> guest: it has been going on now for more than two decades, actually. even before president reagan lifted the fairness doctrine in 1987. but when he did, conservative talk radio came out of the gates like wildfire. it was amazing to watch. i was there at the time. i worked 20 years under the fairness doctrine. i worked 20 years outside of the fairness doctrine. and i can tell you that it was a night and day's difference in what we could do on the nation's airwaves. for the first time, we had stations accepting talk radio as a true format. proof of the pudding so to speak is that in 1987, there were only
12:03 pm
125 radio stations doing talk radio in america. now there are over 2,000. so you can't tell me that lifting the fairness doctrine was the wrong thing to do. >> host: let's get into the fairness doctrine. it's right here in your subtitle the new fairness doctrine exposed. let's go back a little bit in time. tell us exactly what the fairness doctrine was. >> guest: the fairness doctrine was an fcc, federal communications, regulation. 1949 it was established. it was established to force broadcasters to reach out -- to seek out to opposing issues on controversial issues. back then in 1949, there were only 2,000 radio stations in america. there were only a few fledgling television stations in america. and a glimmer of hope for a television network or two. there wasn't as much media back then. of course, we didn't have the internet and the diversity of
12:04 pm
media that we have today. it could be argued to some degree that the fairness doctrine was a fair thing back then because if you overloaded one media with a political ideology, it could sway opinion, no question, with the lack of media that we had back then. but today, there are 13,000 radio stations in america. there is the internet. we have dozens of cable news channels. we have networks. we have tv stations. we have many more newspapers and magazines. there can be no argument for need of diversity of viewpoint in america. we have it at the drop of a hat. >> host: so given the contemporary context then, the very phrase "fairness doctrine" is a misnomer. >> guest: it's an orwellian term that is so disguise and so unfair actually in this day in age that it should not be used for some democrats to hide behind it and use it is
12:05 pm
absolutely disingenuous today. >> host: you mentioned it was dropped in 1987. that president reagan was really a leading force behind no longer enforcing the fairness doctrine. how did that come about? >> guest: the supreme court in 1968 evaluated a case that the fairness doctrine might very well be unconstitutional. as a result of that, the fcc chairman looked at it but it wasn't until reagan that at the looked at it seriously. and president ronald reagan, of course, was a broadcaster at w.h.o. in des moines, iowa, and he knew what the free marketplace meant to free speech. and, therefore, his if i can repealed it by a 4 to 1 vote. it was a best thing to ever happen to free speech in america. for the first time broadcasters
12:06 pm
were on an equal plain with our print brethren. >> host: what kind of metamorphosis did you see? >> guest: well, it was instant. i was involved in a talk radio station in seattle, washington, back in 1988. it was called king at 1090. very liberal radio station, i might add. and we can get into that story a little bit later. >> host: absolutely. >> guest: but immediately the first one out of the gate was rush limbaugh, and rush fully understood what it was to be able to opinionate. he had to live under the fairness doctrine guidelines when he located in sacramento, he told me that it was amazing that there was nothing doing political talk and he said oh, this is a cakewalk, my word, what fun this is going to be. then he had to succumb to the fairness doctrine by giving an hour of a program to somebody in
12:07 pm
the community who was concerned about what he said so he had to move over and it was the worst most boring hour of radio i'd ever done in my life and that's what was happening back then. there was no question about it. what we saw immediately was all of a sudden we could put commentators on the radio and have free opinions on the radio. we didn't to have act as moderators anymore. talk radio was so boring in the 1980s you could report your lost dog or you could, you know, report any kind of a matter like that. but it was -- share your favorite recipes. there were some good programs. i don't want to denigrate talk radio back then. there was bruce williamson and sally jessie ralphal. we stayed away from politics like a plague back then. >> host: in 1987, this was
12:08 pm
precable tv days and precnn although they were on the air but they didn't have the kind of wide audience they had. prefox news certainly. preinternet, preblogs and so when rush limbaugh came on the scene right after the lifting of the fairness doctrine, what he did, what he was able to pioneer and then all of the fellow conservative talk show hosts like me -- we were able to see that the conservative point of view was not being expressed in any other media outlet, not newspapers, not broadcast television. and so it really gave the conservative voice a place to be expressed. >> guest: finally. >> host: finally. and the reason why it turned into a commercial success and i want to get into that with you momentarily there is because half of the country, you could argue -- half of the country, maybe a little bit more because we still are a center right nation felt that their views weren't being expressed in the my time media. and that all of a sudden, wham, here comes this new form of media where their views are being expressed articulately by
12:09 pm
rush and then by others so all of a sudden you had half of the country maybe a little bit more thinking, we're not alone. our viewpoints aren't crazy. >> guest: we're finally validating. >> host: and were validated. >> guest: no question i was one of the conservatives in the '80s i should not think the way i think and i certainly shouldn't speak the way i spoke. and when rush came out of the gates i remember thinking to myself. he is saying what i think and what i feel and yet he's brave enough to say it. now, what's wrong with that picture? well, the fairness doctrine was lifted and we could all of a sudden do exactly that. it was an amazing time to watch conservative growth so quickly then because you're absolutely right. and there are many research projects that back this up. that most media is so liberal that conservatives felt for years they had no validation in the media. and that's why they're so loyal
12:10 pm
to talk radio today. it's the only avenue for them. that's why they're so loyal to fox news. they feel it's the only avenue for their validation and so they support it. and that's why it is so strong in america today. >> host: that's right. >> guest: but you can go to many research projects, the pew research center, this last election clearly showed that the press favored obama. the media research center over the years has shown over the years that white house correspondents, over-80% of them have been democrats. this last fall the ombudsman woman from the "washington post" wrote her paper that her paper favored obama clearly over mccain. that's right. >> guest: and there are so many instances of media bias. talk radio is the only opposition to that bias. and that's why it's done so well. if it hadn't been for talk
12:11 pm
radio, we would not have known the other side of the iraqi war. we would not have exposed the perils of national healthcare. we would most likely had a immigration bill passing through our congress and senate. and without conservative talk radio, there would be no opposition to this. and clearly that's what the obama administration wants. no opposition. >> host: the ideological angle is one part of the equation. the other part of the equation, brian, is the commercial part because what the liberals don't want to deal with and they don't want to see is conservative talk radio -- when it came on the scene and even to this very day is a huge commercial success in terms of ratings and revenue. conservative talk radio makes money. >> guest: yes, it does. >> host: in a private sector economy, if that's still what we have, which is arguable, but one of the things they want to tamp down is this private sector success. >> guest: oh, absolutely. that's what's so scary about this whole effort.
12:12 pm
there's a statement made by the acting fcc chairman michael copps. it's spelled with two p's by the way. the "huffington post" did not get that right. if the market cannot produce what that market wants in terms of the diversity of that market, then government has a legitimate role to play in regulation of speech. this from the federal communications commission. to me that is one of the most arrogant statements about the free marketplace and the free public determining for what it wants to hear, read and see. and for a major bureaucrat to not understand that the free marketplace determines free speech in america is absolutely incredulous in my opinion. >> host: how do they square that circle, brian? think about it, there are certain and very limited limitations on free speech. for example, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
12:13 pm
you can't incite violence and there's some hate speech laws on the books. >> guest: that's right. >> host: but it is a very limited part on free speech. how are they getting away with this in modern times when we have so many of these other outlets for liberal speech, conservative speech and the various other forms of speeches? >> guest: it's very subtle. it's very subtle. i think we have to go back into the history of why they absolutely hate conservative talk radio. and they do. there's just no question about it. they felt the conservative talk radio was too powerful. it helped usher in the republican revolution in the early '90s for congress. >> host: which it did. >> guest: it absolutely did. it helped defeat the democrats in 2000 and 2004. there's no question about it. but they hated that. they absolutely hated that. when george bush won his second election, they vowed that they
12:14 pm
would take talk radio down and win the white house back in 2008. and about that time, 2004, there were many organizations formed, media matters is one. media matters for america, far left organization that has one intent, to take conservative talk down. they use our statements. they take our statements completely out of context. they misrepresent them. and they embellish them with what they think is the truth. that organization is unbelievable. i have been a target of that organization. >> host: as have i. >> guest: yeah, as most conservative talk show hosts have. i was supervising the programming of a radio station in reno, nevada, for citadel. this station has been number one-rated for eight years, plus. phenomenal radio station. the afternoon host gets into the immigration issue in a major way and when he uses the word "illegal," media matters gets all over him. illegal immigration. they even went as far as sending
12:15 pm
an email blast, which is one of their tactics, as you know, to their constituents to protest this at the radio station. so we have a few protesters on the sidewalk and we have other people calling the radio station and calling advertisers to try to get those advertisers off the radio stations. most of the people haven't even heard the program. don't even know what the radio station is. >> host: that's right. >> guest: they're like sheep. and i think media matters is an organization -- they have their rights to free speech but so do we. >> host: you know, this is what's so disturbing about what you just described. that in the united states, in the year 2009, in the 21st century, that we have this kind of -- these kinds of intimidation tactics and strong-arm tactics to silence people with legitimate points of view. again, nobody is going on the air yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. we're simply expressing a legitimate point of view and what we have now is this thought police going on.
12:16 pm
>> guest: unbelievable. >> host: coming from the left. you mentioned orwellian, that's exactly what it is. you feel like you have to weigh every word. if you come out with a joke -- i mean, those of us who do three hours on the air every day, five days a week, sometimes six days a week, you'll find yourself weighing every word maybe restraining yourself, holding your tongue because you're afraid that the thought police might come at you or as you say warp what you have to say, put it in some form of perverse content, mischaracterize it, plaster it all over the place and then you're going to lose revenue. or your radio stations might get hurt. >> guest: you know what? i've given up anymore. i don't care anymore. i state what i feel. i've been talked over so many years. i received literally hundreds and hundreds of hate letters from the far left when i programmed a radio station in seattle, washington, has perhaps is the first all-conservative radio station in america. i would take those letters and i would put them up on the
12:17 pm
bulletin board for everyone to read. it was incredulous. it was like a coach at a football team. here's what your opposition is saying but. let's go beat them. we did. we went from number 23 in the market to number one in that market at that radio station in less than three years. but the far left absolutely comes after conservative talk radio and isn't it interesting that we don't advocate the same kind of intimidation on the left. we believe in free speech rights but they come after us and try to shut us down through intimidation, through regulation. and that's exactly what they're trying to do through the fcc. at the center of this whole debate is the center for american progress, the cap report authored by john podesta. john podesta was the transition chief for president obama. the cap report is basically the playbook right now for the federal communications commission and their reregulation of radio.
12:18 pm
and they are going to reregulate the media. they have stated in their 2008 platform that they need to clarify the public interest obligations. and president obama favors two distinct means of doing that. one is diversity of media ownership. two, is localism. and under the localism banner, that's where we need to be very, very careful about this. >> host: so let's talk about each one of those. let's break those down. talk first about localism. tell us exactly what that means. >> guest: localism is a requirement or a regulation that the fcc has had for a number of years. localism is good and it's a good name. radio stations should reach out and be local. but what the fcc is contemplating doing is requiring a certain amount of programming be local, requiring, not voluntary by the radio. in other words, a radio station in a small community that cannot afford to pay for a local
12:19 pm
personality, they cannot afford to be say 50% local or whatever the requirement might be for that radio station, would be put out of business because they can't afford that. they just cannot afford it. the market may not bear it. and so i think the fcc has to be very sensitive to this. again, that is a form of censorship because it pushes the ability of that station to syndicate a program and forces it into localism. and the fcc is saying, oh, no. that's not -- that's not any kind of censorship, whatsoever. i don't understand how they don't understand that or they just deny it. but it is definitely a way of moving over a syndicated conservative talk show host such as yourself. >> host: uh-huh. >> guest: in favor of more alikism. -- localism. i agree a station needs to be local. as a program director i absolutely required of the stations i supervised but it has to be something that is voluntary and done by the free
12:20 pm
marketplace in america. >> host: and what about the concept of being commercially viable? you mentioned earlier in the interview that there were many times local programming that was boring as can be. and everybody would just turn off their radio because somebody was talking about a implement and nobody cared about that. so isn't it -- it strikes me as wholly inappropriate that the federal government would come in to some of these stations, especially the smaller ones, but even the bigger ones like wabc in new york and knbc in washington and they need to be devoted to local programming when perhaps for those stations or for any station that might not be commercially viable for them. >> guest: commercially viable and interesting like you say. number one, it's hard to find good local talent. but again, i stress that the fcc should back out of this area because it's regulation of speech. and for them not to admit that
12:21 pm
or understand that is incredulous to me. i just don't -- again, i think that this is a -- an effort by the far left to not say that we're going to advocate a new fairness -- or a fairness doctrine but they're going through the back door basically with fairness doctrine-like requirements. same thing. >> host: do you think that this is all part of an orchestrated attempt by the obama administration and the democrats at large because they have these super majorities in the congress because when i look at the landscape and we're talking about commercial viability here in the private sector, what i see is this massive government intervention into every nook and cranny of our lives. and the government intervention in the private sector is unprecedented. we just saw the government takeover of general motors. >> guest: government motors. >> host: the government take
12:22 pm
over the chrysler. and the government intervention of the healthcare sector and the list goes on and on. so is this what we're talking about here, part of a multipronged approach that none of this is random. none of this is off-the-cuff. that it was all to go at one time so all of our rights and our abilities to succeed or achieve in the private sector is really being tamped down? >> guest: oh, i have no question about it. i think you've nailed it. i think what this administration does is that it tries to act so quickly with so many things that we don't have time to discuss what's going on. we don't have time to measure the consequences adequately. and this is going on right under our noses. and i'll tell you how important this is to me. and i hope to many americans is that if we regulate speech in america, what other rights do we have at that point?
12:23 pm
what other rights matter at that point because all rights that we have as americans come from one thing, and that's our free ability to speak. and if we reregulate radio speech or television speech or any way regulate speech at all, we are giving up our most important right in america. we're giving up our heart. we're giving up our soul at that point. and that's why the book documents so many efforts that are intimidation factors that i have a hard time wondering why these people can even call themselves americans. i really wonder. and i've come to a conclusion, monica, that these people hate conservative values so much they want to destroy them. and the way they can destroy them is to destroy conservative talk in america. they cut the head of the snake off so to speak.
12:24 pm
and i'm very afraid that we're giving up our rights, that it's happening right under our noses. and we're in peril. we're at the edge of tyranny. we really are. >> host: one of the ironies here is that the left likes to pride itself on the concept of tolerance. that they're tolerant and they expect everybody else to be tolerant and that's what the nation was built on. well, yes, the nation was built on a concept of tolerance but what the left actually exercises and practices is intolerance. >> guest: total intolerance. it's hypocritical. when i was attacked in the '80s and '90s even by my employer back then. i looked up the word "liberal" what does it mean? a liberal is a person who is open-minded about things. at least that's the definition i've always been told and used. there's nothing open-minded about going after a conservative viewpoint with intimidation. that's not open-minded.
12:25 pm
>> host: does that strike you as a real sense of fundamental insecurity on the part of the left that they believe that their ideas are so weak or so vulnerable or perhaps this country is center right and their ideas will not be supported that because they cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas, they feel that they need to put the first amendment in a vice and try to shut down conservative thoughts and expression? >> guest: oh, i have no doubt about it because i really truly, truly believe that most americans, when it comes down to core values, have some conservative values. and predominantly conservative values. i saw it in seattle when i programmed there. i was told by many people that conservative talk would never work there. that it's north and one of the most liberal areas in the united states -- and it is. but you get outside the core area of downtown seattle, a core metropolitan area, it immediately turns more conservative because people are
12:26 pm
entrepreneurs. they understand what their tax dollars are doing and they have to make payroll and as soon as the outer edges of the city started listening to this conservative talk radio, the ratings just skyrocketed. i'm absolutely convinced that most americans have core principles, and i think that's why -- another reason why the format works so well is because it resonates with meaningful things in their lives. i was attacked viciously in seattle. in fact, i remember a distinct telephone call coming from a friend of mine who was the bureau chief of the associated press when we first went all-talk on kvi. he said you can't do that. that's not allowed. you can't possibly do that in america. the fcc would disallow that. and i said to him -- i said, you're misinformed. the fairness doctrine was repealed about two years ago or three years ago, whatever the time frame was back then.
12:27 pm
but they couldn't believe that in america, we could have absolute free speech. and it's a very scary thing to the left, i believe. they don't feel secure at all. and because we are successful in talk radio, they don't have a piece of that. they have all other media which they fail to recognize it. but they have not been able to compete well in the talk radio circles. >> host: you mentioned -- brian, you mentioned the big station in seattle that you programmed and that in the immediate vicinity, the immediate urban neighborhoods, you know, people thought well, there's no way that conservative radio could thrive, and yet you're saying in the suburbs, once the signal got out, beyond that immediate liberal core of the urban center, that those suburban areas really started listening and that's where your ratings were essentially driven.
12:28 pm
do you think that holds true for most of those big city conservative stations? >> guest: i really do. >> host: that is like doughnut-shaped? >> guest: i absolutely do. i think the core power structure of an inner urban area is democratically controlled and once you get out there and in the heartland sort of way, and i see that happening in most cities. i've seen it happen for the last two decades that way. and i think that's why conservative talk radio does so well is because it reaches people where people are real people. >> host: that's right. and the signals in some of these big city stations, 50,000 watts, extremely strong so it can go over the heads of the liberals so to speak and really reach the people that you're talking about. that must also drive the liberals nuts. >> guest: well, it does. number one, these are very powerful stations. there's a reason these stations are running this type of programming. it works.
12:29 pm
simple as that. they don't want to admit its success because they have not been successful in talk radio. they hate it because conservative talk is very listened-to and very successful. so far liberal talk radio has not been. and, you know, in the book i encourage all my liberal friends, keep talking. keep earning your way. i'm a champion of free speech. why don't they say the same thing to us. >> host: well, and again, if they want -- if they honestly believe in the marketplace of ideas and in the strength of their ideas, then certainly they might -- they might take you up on your offer. and they have tried on the airwaves and when we come back from the break, i want to get into why you think liberal or progressive talk has not succeeded in america and i also want to delve a little bit more deeply into some of these back-door initiatives that the left is trying to push through and now i suspect with a democratic president and these big democratic majorities in
12:30 pm
congress, that perhaps they are armed and they're certainly dangerous. >> guest: they're locked and loaded. >> host: they're locked and loaded. they have their resources and they also, i think, brian, they understand that the political momentum is only going to be with them for so long. that politics in america moves in cycles and they're not going to have this political capital to do this for much longer. that's why we have to watch. all right. we're going to take a quick break. we're going to have more with brian jennings. back after this. sflaish ..
12:31 pm
>> it is by a writer named brian burrough. it is a terrific book. the best book i've read this summer by a young writer named kathrny stockett. it is a story of young women that lived in 1963. it tells you more about the relations between blacks and whites. and what was doing on in the south. that was year that james meredith was involved at the university of mississippi, that was a big story i covered. this is a wonderful book. i recommend it to everyone. to see more summer reading lists and other program information, visit our web site at
12:32 pm afterwords are brian jennings and monica crowley continues. >> i'm monica crowley. we're black with brian jennings who new book is outstanding. its called "sensorship." we left off how the left seems to think that their ideas cannot compete. that their ideas might be weak or vulnerable or perhaps because they still remain a set to right nation their thoughts would not survive. one of their ideas is to try to silence conservative points of view. what has been the track record of liberal or progressive talk in america? >> from an organized stand point
12:33 pm
dismal. there are successful liberal talk stations in america, there's one in san francisco. and others. but air america for instance was a dismal failure. >> went into bankruptcy; right? >> yes. they came out of it. they are trying to recover now. it's been a absolute disaster. i tried as a programmer to establish liberal talk in my career. they all failed. and it wasn't just failure. it was total failure. >> if that window, the liberal voices were on the air alone. how does that compare if you paired a liberal with a conservative voice? i know because i was part of that kind. it doesn't really seem to work. >> it doesn't work that way at all when you combine the two
12:34 pm
back and forth. it's because liberals don't want to here conservatives and conservatives don't want to here liberals. the reason we have all of one stations is because that is the formula that seems the best for ratings. we have to generate ratings for advertising revenue. i try earlier in my career to be, in fact, i used the box phrase fair and balanced. and it did not work. you know, i really gave it an effort. i had rush limbaugh on the air and i followed with a friend of ours alan kohls. and alan is a dear friend and great talk show host. but it did not work there. because the conservative audience did not stick around. as soon as we figured it out and
12:35 pm
programmed the way the music would program, you don't mix country with jazz, urban with pop, whatever it maybe. we put conservatives all on the line up of the conservatives listener listening longer throughout the day. the ratings took off like wild fire. on the stations that i have tried liberal talk on, we've created the environment up against the conservative station it pailed. it wasn't even close. part of my job as an national program director is to keep tabs on the radio ratings nationwide. i look at markets where there is liberal talk in america or other avenue ewes of talk. and these stations are often rated 28, 29 in the marketplace. you can't exist that way. that drives liberals nuts. they can't admit that their ideas fail in the free
12:36 pm
marketplace. therefore, what do they? they run to daddy, the government, and want regulation. they want, well, give us a fair. we can't believe that our point of view doesn't work. we don't accept that. that's even contained in the cap report. again, headed and stated in the report. the fact of the matter is the free marketplace is where ideas germinate, where they succeed and fail. and we have to value that. >> now, if the liberal point of view doesn't succeed in talk radio, that's just one medium. and that's what they are focused on because it fails there. however, the left has cnn, msnbc, pretty much every newspaper with the exception of very few, plus "times," and
12:37 pm
"news week." they are so focused without taking a step back to look at where their point of view is multifold and expressed in every single outlet. you cannot go without seeing one of these newspapers and they are focused on the one media when they cannot succeed when they have the advantage everywhere else. >> they want it all. they can't stand to not have it all. that's why we have to protect. because it's the only opposition out there left. if we marginalize through free regulation of whatever is the obligation of america through the air waves we've given up a freedom. we've becomed homogenized. there's a country that's tried to do this right now. if you read, it's the country of
12:38 pm
argentina. the president is so angry for the criticism, she wants to force more diversity of ownership. that's exactly what our government is tried to do at the same time? >> and sets you right. and we talk about these international examples of what is happening here in america. you do write about canada and you say it looks like what canada is doing and leading the left. >> oh, my word. the canadian situation scares me to death. the canadian human rights, they call them that. it is very powerful. our friend mark stein and his book america alone when he wrote through the magazine and the canadian islamic council protested and wents to tradition it. and it cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars in court and legal fees. i'm not sure how much it cost him. but it certainly did cost.
12:39 pm
it was an absolute affront. in canada it took months. and it wasn't just one, it was british columbia. it was alberta, it was others. and the national canadian human rights tribunal. those tribunals have censored canadian for what they believe to be hate, speaking out of homosexuality and gay marriage. we're seeing the same thing creep into the united states. >> do we have any evidence that obama administration, congress, and what's happening in canada,
12:40 pm
argentina, they are taking that as a model? >> oh, i believe that's to be the case. it is very apparent. the recent example of the united kingdom banning for his speech against radical islam. it's incredible that proports to value of free speech. in fact, i defend michael's speech in several instants in the book. so i would presume that they should ban the book. if they really follow a consistency, they think that would be hate speech as well. we're seeing many examples of other organizations and assaults on free speech not just through the fcc but other organizations such as hispanic organization and studies in ucla where they have isolated an 80-minute tape
12:41 pm
with three different shows. kfi, michael savage, and also lou dobbs. and in that the 80-minutes of tape they claim to have 334 instances of hate speech. well, first of all, who defines hate? you know, there's an saying that one man's cup of tea is another man's poison or something like that. and who define that is? who defines what is hateful and what is not? and i found it really interesting. the hispanic groups that are suggesting this stated that they value free speech. but -- but -- >> there's always a but. >> there's always a but. whenever you see it or hear it be very, very careful. free speech can only be free without that but. >> on this point, talking about political correctness, it does
12:42 pm
turn into a form of censorship. and i think to the example of don imus who made the crack on the air. he was broadcast on that cable network while doing his nationally syndicated radio program. and that kind of political correctness came down on him. the left came out of there as fast as possible. the advertisers were squeezed. that's just one example of many of what you're talking about. this gets into the back door approach that the left is having to try to silence voices that they disagree with. >> don imus is the leading example. yes, it was a stupid comment. he apologized for it. i think it was heartfelt in his apology. he's back talking where he should be. he does have his free speech rights. most conservative understand what the common sense is all
12:43 pm
about. there are liberal talkers out there who are hateful themselves. and if we wanted to be the same as liberals and charge that, we would do that. but we're not. we believe in free speech. and we don't want reregulation. >> what about this idea of the double standard. don imus does make a stupid remark. he apologized. he pays the ultimate show. he loses his radio show. but a comedian can stand up at the white house and wish rush limbaugh dead. even the president of the united states laughs at that. this is the environment that we are dealing in. >> this is the environment. it's very hypocritical. as you noticed rush did not comment on that. he didn't need to. it tells the full story of what the far left really wants for america. and they don't want conservative
12:44 pm
views. they hate conservatives views and they want to absolutely kill conservatives views around america. therefore they go after our talk show hosts. >> that's right. we are talking about soft now let's talk about heart censorship. do you think they will go at a full frontal reconstitution of the fairness doctrine or will they approach it from a different angle? >> if they do, they can expect a tea party that was incredible. >> you ain't seen nothing yet. >> you ain't seen nothing yet. no, they are not going to go through on than p a lot of trial balloons were put up. especially as the new president was coming into the power. president bill clinton expressed
12:45 pm
his desire for radio. there have been many efforts to do the same thing. it's been going on since the early '90s when they wanted to return the fairness doctrine. they have figured out, and they knew all the time, that it would be found unconstitutional. at least we hope it would be found. because if it isn't, we're not the nation that we thought we were. therefore, we want to go through the back door and press it in momentum to be very scary in october. >> well, they have a far better offense when they won a championship, and also, one moral of the story, you take your closers where up find them. ryan franklin, a retread of retreads, who's got an e.r.a. under 1.0 , at 36 years old, has become a premier closer. thank you very much, david duncan, again, i think. i'm sexaw by the way, the dodgers, who ran away from everyone, against the cardinals last five years, they are 12-28. that's the dodgers, 12-28.
12:46 pm
up next -- tiger woods, the great golf god was struck down by a bolt of lightning last sunday. y.e. yang's 75-foot chip shot, y.e. yang's 75-foot chip shot, the shot that was truly heard when people say, hey mike, why ford, why now? i say brace yourself. that gas guzzler in your driveway, just might be, a clunker. but don't panic, it could be a good thing. your ford and lincoln mercury dealers are cash for clunkers specialists. they'll recycle your ride, and get you a big fat juicy rebate from uncle sam. you can get all the details, charts, graphs, etc, at why ford, why now? why not? visit your ford or lincoln mercury dealer. i'm thinking now would be a great time.
12:47 pm
12:48 pm
>> there are no sure things in
12:49 pm
sports anymore, not when tiger woods gives up a third-round lead in a major and is shot down on sunday. especially when the assassin is a 37-year-old south korean who never picked up a golf club until he was 19. bob, has tiger lost his aura of invincibility? >> if you have a serk in which you are always, always, always done something, and then suddenly you are unable to do it, and that's what we're talking about here, he has not blown a lead in a major ever, yes, i think it does give confidence and raise the spirits of everybody else. now, having said that, i question that any of the usual suspects would have taken advantage of it the way this -- i'm not saying the guy was loosey-goosey, but i think a play comfortably, what do i got to lose attitude, and that was the guy that could bring him doufpble >> well, you almost figured it would be a guy like that, because the other guys have already taken their shots, and they all fall by the wayside whenever they have to face tiring. you almost figure it would be a
12:50 pm
guy who came out of nowhere, and i thought it began on 14 with the eagle that, you know, this guy says, well, i guess they're on my side today, and it continued with that great shot on 18. and you saw something in watching tiger woods, a frustration almost that he couldn't believe it himself, like, wait, wait, i win these things, how many i not winning these things? you're absolutely right, though, when you say the aura of invincibility will be measured by other golfers. i don't think tiger woods is going to start collapsing at every major tournament in the final day, but if other golfers actually say, wait a minute, if yang can do it, i can do it, that could be what changes. >> stop it. he is so good that coming off of major knee surgery, we're still measuring him and saying, i can't believe he gave it up. we know that the average golfer out there on the pga tour, the minute he's in a situation like that with tiger woods, what happens? it always happens that way. so i'm going to continue to
12:51 pm
believe that we're looking at a less than 100% tiger, who's still healing, and you know what? most pga guys would kill for the season that -- >> of course they would. >> that tiger already had. >> well, there's no argument there, and i'm with you on this, and i think that people are going downplay this spectacular season. he's the one that made these rules, though. he's the one that set the bar, it's not a great season fip don't within a major. >> that's right, but we have to be smart enough to realize this. >> is putting always right in the week before he makes all his 10-footer. suddenly he's not making 109-footers, and that's the difference. and i don't think that's going to mean it signals the end of his career. but this is the beginning of the rest of tiger's career, though. and the first 14 are going to look awful ease any retrospect compared to what it's going take to win the next five. he can do, this but he's going to have to find another reserve. >> he's still a human being,
12:52 pm
and, you know, i don't agree with you. he measures himself, and his next tournament is the masters. i don't care what he plays between. it's now -- and that's next year. and he had all of last year to come back from surgery. that's why he didn't play. this was supposed to be, he was healthy. look at the four majors he participated in, two kind of almost, one didn't make the cut, and one got stared down by a guy who he never should have lost to. i'm sorry, but in tiger woods' unbelievable career, that stands out. that year stands out. this is an unusual year for him to have missing a cut and getting stared down and lugse. you thought of the two things that were going to happen in his life, of those records that he has where he has never come back, you know, on a sunday from behind, and he's never lost on a sunday when he's ahead, you would have thought the first one would have fallen first, and instead, it was the other. we'll see next year. if he comes back and wins all four, then i'll sit and here say, well, i guess we were wrong, but i can't dismiss this as nofplg >> no, i can and i'm going give hem a mulligan, because, look, i don't care what he says. we have to be smart enough to
12:53 pm
understand that it is difficult when you have that kind of major knee surgery, a year ago this month, we thought that maybe he had done -- he had wrecked his career. that's how serious that knee injury was. so he gets a mulligan. next year, you can look at him and see that he's completely healthy. he's had a year. and then we can judge him. >> let'sen realistic, as well, though. anybody who putted as poorly as he did would not have even where near the top of the leaderboard. when we return, our "parting shots" will pay tribute to derek jeter, the yankees captain. n
12:54 pm
12:55 pm
[captioning made possible by espn, inc.] captioned by the national captioning institute
12:56 pm
>> time now for our "parting shots." bob ryan leads off. >> almost inevitably, didn'tly great athletes wind up being taken for granted. derek jeter is this year's exhibit a. now, mark teixeira is this year's glamour boy, and rightly so. but 14 years into his absolutely brilliant creerk the yankee captain is having one of his finest years. he's on target for his 700th 200-hit season and his 12th 100-run season. he already has 15 home runs, batting .311, his on base percentage is around .400. he's stolen 21 bases, and his defense is better than it was two or three years ago when insiders said his range was deteriorating. now, i may be out there, but i believe derek jeter is the best pure baseball of his time, a man capable of beating you in every way conceivable. sexells a no-maintenance player for a new york manager. he's going to the hall of fame, we all know that. but the resume is still being compiled.
12:57 pm
and we are all privileged to watch it build. >> you know, john calipari must be the luckiest guy in the world, because everywhere he goes, he wins, and everywhere he goes the ncaa weeps out his most complessive accomplishments. yet he always escapes under the convenient cloak of plausible deniability. he's like the kaiser sose, always almost the first ube suspects when something is afoot, but he always slapes way with a wink and a smile. now, that's not really a good thing for a prominent coach to be best known for, but here's why i don't feel like coming down too hard on cal. just as long as there are integrity-challenged folks out there who strongly encourage taking every shortcut to get to the final four with obscene contracts like the one kentucky just handed cal, don't be surprised when some coaches take that as a green light to continue to cut corners. just as long as they have a swift getaway vehicle. >> he's the best there is, he's always smiling, and get this, he passes his drug test.
12:58 pm
usain bolt, the fastest man oneth, seems to have no bounds. last sunday night he smashed his own world record in the 100 meters. a few days larktse he did the same in the 200. he's racing in his own universe. there's him, there's his shadow, and then there's everyone else. on top of this, he mugs and poses for the cameras while his competitors maintain that's super serious sprinter look. i don't know how much faster bolt can go. he's only 23. the margin by which he lowered the 100 record in one year, it took other men the last 17 years to do. so now what? does he break 9.5 in the 100? does he break 19 seconds in the 200? does the fact that i even know these numbers tell you something? yes. usain bolt is doing the truly impossible, he's making people watch track in between the olympics. >> michael vick is back in the nfl, but the league and commissioner roger goodell won't let him play the first half of the preseason and probably the first six games of the regular season.
12:59 pm
the nfl may think vick still needs to be punished, but that won't stop the league from making money from his name. log on to, and you can already buy vick's eagles jersey. that's why you can wear number 7 on sunday before vick can. but that's nothing compared with the nfl's involvement in creating the michael vick dog jersey. for $40, you can preorder custom-made jerseys for fido and spot with vick's name and number on the back. and there's no indication the money is going to help animals. you can order tom brady or terrell owens or any player. but didn't the nfl think they might want to draw the line? this simply says vick committed a terrible crime, is still being punished for it, but even though he can't wear the eagles green, he can still make green for the league. please join us again next sunday for another edition of "the sports reporters." we're on each sunday morning at 9:30 a.m. eastern time on espn, and on


disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on